CR vs Brain Cancer

Kenneth Collins k.p.collins at worldnet.att.net
Sun Jun 30 18:42:39 EST 2002


Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1EFCF7.2050105 at morelife.org>...
>Kenneth Collins wrote:
>
>> Tom Matthews wrote in message <3D1E1329.5020502 at morelife.org>...
>[snip]
>
>
>>>It would help if you defined "TD E/I-minimization".
>>>
>>
>> it's a long story. "TD E/I-minimization" is shorthand for "the
minimizarion
>> of the topologically-distributed [relative] ratios of excitation to
>> inhibition. keying upon such allows nervous-system dynamics to be
rigorously
>> correlated rigorously ]'mapped'] with respect to correlates in the
external
>> environment, and simultaneously cross-correlated within the nervous
system.
>> the underpinning rationale for such derives in the
>> physical-reality-permeating existence of the one-way flow of energy from
>> order to disorder that is what's described by 2nd Thermo [WDB2T].
>>
>> i've been discussing this stuff online going back 14 years, and usually
>> write for folks who've been following the discussion all along
['cringing'
>> on behalf of others as i write. i've got an old hypertext doc that
outlines
>> the fundamentals, and which i send to folks who want it.. runs under
>> Windows. about 354k. expands to about a meg. about 114 singled-spaced 8.5
x
>> 11 pages @ 10pt.]
>
>
>Ok, I get the general concept. However, as an ex-math professor I take
exception
>to your use of the word "topologically". Topological refers purely to
>connectedness and all that can be said of humans is that they are
topologically
>equivalent to three wholled donuts.

nervous systems are all about the Topology [fancy Geometry] of
connectedness. it's this Topology that Determines energy-flow within nervous
systems. the Topology is initialized via evolutionary dynamics, and
continually modified vai experience. the neural Topology aligns energy-flow
within the 'internal enfironment' so that it occurs 'in-register' with
energy-flow within the experiential-external-environment.

it's because of this [neural] Toploogy that we are able to 'know' how and
why to behave with respect to this or that environmental circumstance.

it is Topology, in an awesomely-pure, extraordinarily-functional, form. it's
power derives in it's dynamic-integration of energy-flow gradients, all
while maintaining [ideally] rigorous 'mapping' with respect to
external-environment correlates. all other Maths is 'only' a
interface-facilitation transformation of the neural Topology.

nervous systems are Topologists' Playgrounds.

all Maths is Topology :-)

the fundamentals of how it's so are what's discussed in the hypertext doc
[AoK]. the main thing i'm doing is teaching this Topology in order to work
toward the elimination of a 'flaw' that's been imposed upon the functioning
of the neural Topology during the course of the haphazard accumulation of
'knowledge' that is what's been referred to as "human nature".

why? because what's been referred to as "human nature" is not Human Nature,
but a bastardization of Human Nature in which Ignorance comingles within the
neural Topology.

Human Nature is the neural Topology sans Ignorance.

it's the Ignorance that Kills, etc., not anything Innate within the neural
Topology [Human Nature].

remove the Ignorance, stop the Killing, etc.

worth doing, right?

yes.

makes more sence than trying to eliminate the Killing through more-Killing,
no?

yes.

that's why i do what i do :-)

it's all very straight-forward at a chaulkboard. but, every time i ask to
borrow folks' chaulkboards, folks take their chaulk, and won't play with me.

so, i go on and on, online, 'painting the Topology' via this sort of
needlessly cumbersom verbal-interface transformation, Hoping to make a Gift
of it's stuff, even to those who won't share their chaulk.

[and i write like this because doing so allows me to cope with how much it
all 'hurts'. you know, "smile though your heart is breaking" stuff.]

>
>
>[snip]
>
>
>
>>>>there're loose-ends aplenty.
>>>>
>>>
>>>From my reading, I don't agree. There are very few of any likely
>>>significance, IMO. The major one, IMO, is the fact that all animals
>
>>>tested so far have rather
>>>short lifespans and the mechanisms of the effect may already be so much
>>>more optimized in a longer lived species such as humans, that CR will not
>>>accomplish
>>>much additional longevity, even though it will still be a highly
beneficial
>>>anti-morbidity/mortality agent (ie. it will likely extend the years of
>>>robust health of those practicing it except for the ones who would have
>
>>>lived to a very old age anyway).
>>>
>>
>> from my perspective, it's just that i've not yet 'found the bottom', and
>> want to 'campaign' on behalf of the work that remains to be accomplished.
>
>
>Again to me, it is not clear what you mean by the above.
>
>
>Are you saying that you think there is still plenty of longevity yet to be
>accomplished by life style changes currently available? And that is why you
do
>not personally want to push for more (high tech) methods to become
available?

in the statement to which you refer, i wasn't addressing anything in
particular. i was just reiterating the fact that i've never encountered any
experimental design that cannot be improved, and adding that i've never come
across anything that there's an end to such possible improvement [except, as
far as i can see, WDB2T.]

cheers, Tom, ken [k. p. collins]

>[...]





More information about the Neur-sci mailing list